What Is The Just World Fallacy?

The just world fallacy is the cognitive bias that leads people to believe the world is inherently fair, where good people are rewarded and bad people are punished. This belief can strongly influence monarchist attitudes, particularly in the way they justify and defend the monarchy despite its flaws.

For some monarchists, the just world fallacy reinforces the idea that royal status is deserved rather than arbitrary. They may see the monarchy as a natural and just institution, where the royal family has earned its privileged position through virtue, tradition, or divine will. This perspective makes it easier to overlook scandals, financial controversies, or accusations of misconduct, as acknowledging these flaws would challenge the belief that the world is fundamentally fair.

Additionally, the fallacy can cause monarchists to rationalise inequalities within the system. If the royal family enjoys immense wealth and influence, some may assume this is because they are inherently suited for leadership or have made personal sacrifices for the nation. Conversely, critics of the monarchy might be dismissed as envious or misguided, since in a "just world," those who oppose the system must simply not understand its righteousness.

In short, the just world fallacy allows some monarchists to see the monarchy as a meritocratic and necessary institution, rather than a system based on inherited privilege. This leads them to downplay or excuse the flaws of individual royals, reinforcing their belief that the monarchy is fundamentally good and right.

Here are a few examples of how the just world fallacy influences monarchist support for the British monarchy:

1. Andrew and the Epstein Scandal

Despite serious allegations against Andrew regarding his association with Jeffrey Epstein, some monarchists dismiss or downplay the controversy. Rather than accepting the possibility of wrongdoing, they assume that because Andrew is a royal, he must be innocent or a victim of a smear campaign. This aligns with the just world fallacy: "Bad things don't happen to good people, and good people don’t do bad things."

2. Charles III’s Tax Privileges

The British monarchy benefits from numerous tax exemptions, including on inheritance tax. Some monarchists justify this by arguing that the King "works hard" for the country and therefore deserves such privileges. The just world fallacy leads them to see these financial benefits as fair rewards rather than an unjust system of inherited wealth and power.

3. Will and Kate’s Lavish Spending

When reports emerge about the cost of William and Kate’s renovations or expensive overseas tours, critics argue that taxpayers’ money is being wasted. However, some monarchists defend this spending, claiming the couple "deserve" these privileges because of their dedication to public service. The just world fallacy helps frame their wealth as a fair return for their symbolic role, rather than an example of systemic inequality.

4. Meghan Markle vs. Kate Middleton

Meghan Markle faced intense media scrutiny, while Kate Middleton was often portrayed as graceful and dutiful. Some monarchists, influenced by the just world fallacy, assume that Meghan "deserved" negative press because she must have done something wrong, while Kate’s positive coverage is a reflection of her inherently good character. This ignores the role of bias and institutional racism in media narratives.

5. The Queen’s Longevity as a Sign of Divine Favour

Many monarchists viewed Queen Elizabeth II’s long reign as proof that she was uniquely suited to rule, as if fate or divine justice had rewarded her with a long and successful life. The just world fallacy leads them to see her reign as evidence of her virtue, rather than a combination of historical circumstances, personal resilience, and institutional support.

Each of these examples shows how the just world fallacy can blind people to the flaws of the monarchy by reinforcing the idea that the royal family deserves its status and should not be criticised too harshly.

The just world fallacy is dangerous because it leads people to ignore injustice, excuse wrongdoing, and resist necessary change. Here are some key reasons why this way of thinking is harmful:

1. It Justifies Inequality and Privilege

People who believe the world is inherently fair assume that those in power deserve their status, while those who struggle must have done something wrong. This mindset discourages questioning unfair systems—such as monarchy, extreme wealth inequality, or social class divisions—because it frames them as natural and just rather than arbitrary or oppressive.

2. It Blames Victims

Rather than acknowledging systemic issues, the just world fallacy makes people blame individuals for their misfortunes. For example:

If someone is poor, they must be lazy.

If someone is discriminated against, they must have provoked it.

If someone is a victim of crime, they must have put themselves in danger.

This mindset prevents meaningful discussions about structural problems like poverty, racism, or abuse.

3. It Excuses Corruption and Abuse

When people assume that "good things happen to good people," they are more likely to ignore or downplay scandals involving those in power. For example, some supporters of the monarchy might dismiss financial misconduct or personal scandals involving royals because they assume the system naturally rewards the most deserving individuals. This can lead to unquestioned loyalty and an unwillingness to hold powerful figures accountable.

4. It Prevents Social Progress

The just world fallacy makes people resist change because they believe existing systems are fundamentally fair. If the world is already just, then efforts to reform society—whether through protests, policy changes, or activism—are seen as unnecessary or even dangerous. This can delay progress on issues like wealth redistribution, racial justice, or workers’ rights.

5. It Creates a False Sense of Security

People who believe the world is just often feel shock and disillusionment when they encounter real injustice. This can lead to inaction or denial rather than engagement. For example, some people refuse to believe in institutional racism or corruption because it contradicts their belief that society rewards fairness and merit.

Conclusion

The just world fallacy is dangerous because it distorts reality, making people less likely to recognise injustice, challenge power, or demand accountability. It creates complacency, shifts blame onto victims, and allows corruption to thrive. A more realistic view—acknowledging that unfairness exists and must be actively addressed—leads to a fairer and more just society.

Finally, here are some quotes to sum up what they believe:

1. "A structured world, even if unfair, feels safer than a chaotic one with no rules at all."

2. "People cling to hierarchy not because it is just, but because it is familiar."

3. "Believing the system is fair is easier than facing the fear that it isn’t."

4. "The comfort of knowing one’s place often outweighs the discomfort of questioning it."

5. "People often accept the chains of hierarchy not because they love them, but because the weight of uncertainty feels heavier."